User:ThoughtIdRetired/sandbox

test area
ISBN 978-91-7329-100-2

Elizabeth Leveson-Gower,_Duchess of Sutherland the tacksmen explanation is an example of a footnote on a technical term which the reader may gloss over on their first encounter in the article text, but then need to go back to on the second. It is easier to find in a separate notes section.

WP:Featured articles

article text

This gives: article text

let's try this

A tour of the inside of the ship, episodes: 1 2 3 4 5

all 5 videos



Sailing performance
One of the first observations made by the archaeologists working on the recovery of the wreck of Mary Rose was the length to breadth ration. Naval historians had expected a beamy vessel; instead her keel length is 2.7 times the beam, a narrow hull for her time. Additionally, the underwater part of the hull can be described as fine, especially in the run. This would account for the good sailing performance of Mary Rose as originally built and could also be a contributing factor to her loss.

The sailing capabilities of the Mary Rose were commented on by her contemporaries and were once even put to the test. In March 1513 a contest was arranged off The Downs, east of Kent, in which she raced against nine other ships. She won the contest, and Admiral Edward Howard described her enthusiastically as "the noblest ship of sayle [of any] gret ship, at this howr, that I trow [believe] be in Cristendom". Several years later, while sailing between Dover and The Downs, Vice-Admiral William Fitzwilliam noted that both the Henry Grace à Dieu and the Mary Rose performed very well, riding steadily in rough seas and that it would have been a "hard chose" between the two. The reports of good sailing performance early in her career did not continue after successive repairs and the major rebuild altered her characteristics.

RfC: separate notes section
rfc|hist}} Should the layout of this article contain a separate section for explanatory footnotes, similar in general appearance to the version here?

Options
 * A. Separate section for explanatory footnotes
 * B. No separate section for explanatory footnotes

This RfC was recommended in the third opinion shown above under Talk:Vasa (ship). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Construction method
The vessel was clinker built, representing a Northern European shipbuilding tradition. The construction sequence started with the jointing of the keel to the stem and sternpost. The keel was rebated to accept the garboards. These were shaped and fitted to the keel with spike nails. Then further strakes of planking were added to at least the level of the turn of the bilge. The planks were fastened together with wrought iron square-sectioned nails which were peened over roves on the inside of the hull. The joint between adjacent planks contains luting to seal the gap. This is made of tar and animal hair. Hair from horse, cow, sheep and goat has all been identified in the Newport ship.

The floors were probably fitted at this point, when the planking was above the highest level reached by them. They were shaped to follow the stepped pattern of the planks (a process called "joggling") and fastened to the planking with a combination of treenails and spike nails (i.e. nails without roves). The floors are asymmetric, with a longer arm on one side of the keel than the other. The long side alternates port and starboard along the length of the keel. The frames (i.e. the floors and the futtocks) are invariably rebated to fit over any roves that they coincide with on the inside of the planking, so making clear their installation after the assembly of the planking. The floors are not fastened to the keel, only to the planking and the first futtock.

The planking was then continued up the side of the hull, with the frames being built up with futtocks as sufficient height was reached. The futtocks are scarf jointed to each other in sequence and to the floors.

The keel is made of beech, but the rest of the ship is made of oak, although no reason for this has yet been suggested. One possible explanation is a simple shortage of oak compared with beech at the time of construction. The hull planking is radially split oak which has been finished with an axe or adze. The keel and frames are also finished with an axe or adze. This contrasts with the stringers, hatch covers, ceiling and deck planks, which were all sawn.

Inside the frames are stringers: longitudinal structural components. Seven runs of stringers were found on the more-preserved starboard side. Between the stringers, the inside of the hull was lined with ceiling planks – these are thinner than the stringers and, together with the stringers, serve to stop cargo or ballast from coming into contact with the inside of the external planking of the hull. Both the stringers and ceiling planks were made of sawn oak, in contrast to the radially split hull planks and the hewn framing. The highest surviving stringer shows evidence of supporting the first deck.

Cleaning of the timbers has led to the discovery, on the planking of the outer hull, of a series of marks deliberately scribed into the timbers. These appear to be either individual shipwrights' marks or instructions for the positioning of planks or fastenings. The conservation team is hoping that a pattern will emerge as the recording process continues. During mid 2007, the cleaning of barrel-top fragments revealed merchant marks. Some of these may resemble known marks of merchants from the city of Bristol, but this is not proof that they originated there.

Survey

 * Option A, for reasons given in my justification in the Discussion section, below. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is not just a matter of presentational style. In the latter half of 2023, a second major source was published on the subject of this article covering, in the main part, the sailing rig of Vasa. Putting material from this source in the article will require a lot of terminological and other explanation that will be familiar to some readers and not to others. The easiest place to put that is in a separate notes section, where everything is grouped together. The reader can then skip footnotes if they wish or can refer back to them as they read further into the article.
 * A major complication is that the details of Square rig in the 17th century were very different from the latter half of the 19th and early 20th century, which is the experience of many with some knowledge. Therefore Wikilinks are not really an answer to explaining things, as existing articles tend to focus on the more recent versions of square rig. Rewriting a number of these articles would be a significant task and may then alter their balance by containing too much about the 17th century version.
 * A separate notes section will also be useful for information that breaks the narrative flow of the article, but is still material that is helpful to the reader. An example of this is the current text at the end of the Masts and spars section, which mentions the role of Amsterdam in the international timber trade of the time.(Note that writing of these sections has been paused whilst these layout matters are being resolved. There is a lot more material to add.)
 * The article contained a separate footnotes section until quite recently, though this did not exist at the time the article gained Featured Article status in December 2007. The first separate informational footnote was added in October 2019. By 12 January 2024 there were four footnotes in the section.
 * A separate informational footnotes section is common in Featured Articles. A survey of 101 featured articles found that 68 (67%) had some sort of informational footnote. Of these 68, the survey showed 61 (90%) with a separate notes section. Of the seven articles that mixed notes in with references, four had no reference to support their content and the other three included the reference in a narrative form within the note. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

 * Option A, for reasons given in my justification in the Discussion section, below. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

 * This is not just a matter of presentational style. In the latter half of 2023, a second major source was published on the subject of this article covering, in the main part, the sailing rig of Vasa. Putting material from this source in the article will require a lot of terminological and other explanation that will be familiar to some readers and not to others. The easiest place to put that is in a separate notes section, where everything is grouped together. The reader can then skip footnotes if they wish or can refer back to them as they read further into the article.
 * A major complication is that the details of Square rig in the 17th century were very different from the latter half of the 19th and early 20th century, which is the experience of many with some knowledge. Therefore Wikilinks are not really an answer to explaining things, as existing articles tend to focus on the more recent versions of square rig. Rewriting a number of these articles would be a significant task and may then alter their balance by containing too much about the 17th century version.
 * A separate notes section will also be useful for information that breaks the narrative flow of the article, but is still material that is helpful to the reader. An example of this is the current text at the end of the Masts and spars section, which mentions the role of Amsterdam in the international timber trade of the time.(Note that writing of these sections has been paused whilst these layout matters are being resolved. There is a lot more material to add.)
 * The article contained a separate footnotes section until quite recently, though this did not exist at the time the article gained Featured Article status in December 2007. The first separate informational footnote was added in October 2019. By 12 January 2024 there were four footnotes in the section.
 * A separate informational footnotes section is common in Featured Articles. A survey of 101 featured articles found that 68 (67%) had some sort of informational footnote. Of these 68, the survey showed 61 (90%) with a separate notes section. Of the seven articles that mixed notes in with references, four had no reference to support their content and the other three included the reference in a narrative form within the note. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)


 * A lot of this argues in favour of having explanatory notes in general, which I don't think is in dispute; about the only thing specific to the separation of notes is that some other articles do it. Anything else to support that position? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

storage area
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TylerBurden&diff=prev&oldid=1197436422

temp storage of tests




| Swedish wikipedia's article on Äpplet (1629), a sister ship to Vasa





Types and characteristics
Historically, watercraft have been divided into two main categories.
 * Rafts gain their buoyancy from the fastening together of components that are each buoyant in their own right. Generally, a raft is a "flow through" structures, whose users would have difficulty keeping dry as it passes through waves. Consequently, apart from short journeys (such as a river crossing) their use is confined to warmer regions (roughly 40° N to 40° S). Outside this area, use of rafts at sea are impracticable due to the risks of exposure to the crew. Rafts divide into a number of types bundle raft can be made from, for example, papyrus that has been tied into bundles. These can even be shaped
 * Boats and ships float by having much of the structure exclude water with a waterproof surface, so creating a space that contains air, as well as cargo, passengers, crew, etc. In total, this structure weighs less than the water that would occupy the same volume



1-PREFIX 2-name

SS Agamemnon

SS Agamemnon

ARA General Belgrano

SS Agamemnon

SS Agamemnon

SS Agamemnon

SS Agamemnon

60 psi

HMS Endeavour

Lahloo

Niña

Mary Rose

Niña

Pinta (ship)

6 cuft

whisky

WP:OR

Gàidhealtachd

SS Athenia (1922)

Heading text
Talk:Channel Dash

Talk:Channel Dash



WP:NPV



Enclosure (Agricultural Revolution)

WP:SOURCE

I have found a very useful interview with Prof Jim Hunter, one of the academic experts on the Highland Clearances. Jim Hunter, Eric Richards and Tom Devine are the three major academic writers on the subject - all with current or emeritus professor status at relevant universities - and their work summarises and cites much of the work done by other academics working in the field. They stand in contrast to the many "popular" writers in the subject, many of whom express outdated, romanticised or biased views of the subject. (There are some writers who fall in-between these extremes.) I would like to be able to use the interview appearing in fivebooks.com as it brings together and specifically states opinions that one can deduce from other works, but to do so might be accused of WP:SYNTH. Therefore, please would you whitelist the interview with Jim Hunter.

 Google

text
 * indented text
 * more indented text

and then the indent disappears.

[| first edit on Highland Clearances]

[| first edit on Highland Clearances] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highland_Clearances&diff=prev&oldid=785133631

[| first edit on Highland Clearances]

[| old version of the article]

[]

Please see the bizarre post by WyndingHeadland on  22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC). The answer immediately after by User:Catrìona sums up what we all feel. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Highland potato famine
The Highland Potato Famine (Gaiseadh a' bhuntàta) was caused by an outbreak of potato blight in the Scottish Highlands, starting in 1846 and continuing until about 1856. The overcrowded crofting communities of the Hebrides and western Highlands were heavily reliant on the potato for subsistence, as it normally had a yield (measured as energy content divided by the area cropped) of between 3 and 5 times that of a cereal crop.

Western Approaches
The Western Approaches, when unqualified with any other geographic description, is generally taken to mean the western approaches, by sea, to the British Isles. This constitutes a large area of the eastern part of the Atlantic Ocean.

In this context, "approaches" means the seas beyond the coastal waters around (usually) a port. This term is often found in descriptions of maritime areas, such as in the titles of nautical charts. The British Admiralty chart number 4102 titled "Western Approaches to the British Isles" covers an area approximately delineated by the North of Shetland, the latitude of Brest, and from the latitude XXwest to YYeast. During World War II, the Royal Navy took responsibility for a sea area called "Western Approaches" through the Western Approaches Command, based in Liverpool. This extended from Britain to 20 degrees West longitude.

out to 20 degrees west longitude. For the rest of the war, the area between this invisible line and the British Isles was known as the Western Approaches,

Symonds, Craig L.. World War II at Sea (p. 113). Oxford University Press. Kindle Edition.

By 1850, sailing vessels were starting to see a small amount of competition from steamships. At the same time, the many technological advances arising from the industrial revolution had an effect on the sailing vessels. The rate of change over the second half of the 19th century was not continuous, and sail and steam coexisted for much of that time in a balance of the economics of running the two types of vessel. Steamship technology made a big step with the increased fuel efficiency of SS Agamemnon on the route to China. Other steamers with similar compound engines rapidly came into service, making an entire class of sailing ship, the Tea Clipper, redundant by the early 1870s - by which time the Suez Canal was open. Improved steel-making and boiler design allowed the higher steam pressures necessary for triple expansion engines that were used from 1881 (SS Aberdeen). The huge 60% saving in fuel consumption obtained meant that the newly-built steamer of the mid 1880's was as economical as a sailing vessel.

In 1850, sailing vessels were almost universally built of wood and square rig predominated in larger examples. But this was a time of change. The first iron-hulled sailing ships were in service - though most iron construction was for steam powered vessels, for which it was increasingly clear that wood was inadequate. Hull shape had already started to change. Short, deep and wide hulls gave way to longer hulls with less depth of hold - partly as a result of the changed method of measuring for tonnage in Britain in 1836, partly because of the demand for faster passages. Hemp standing rigging started to become obsolete in the 1850s, being replaced with iron wire. This gave less windage, needed less maintenance and, having a higher tensile strength, did not need the widely spaced attachment points at deck level. So the channels on the outside of the hull, which caused drag when the ship heeled and were exposed for damage when alongside a quay, could be dispensed with. Shortages of ship-building timber in Britain, and the ready availability of iron, resulted in some wooden ships having iron knees (and sometimes beams). The first alterations were made to rigs to allow easier working with smaller crews, with double topsails being introduced in the 1850s (and double topgallants by the late 1860s). At deck level, the patent windlass replaced anchor and warp handling equipment that was unchanged since the 16th century, braces were hauled by patent winches, and new designs of pumps cleared the bilgewater. Composite construction was approved by Lloyd's Register in 1861, giving the advantages of wooden hull planking (allowing copper sheathing to prevent marine fouling) over an iron frame that gave space-saving rigidity. Whilst more expensive to build, this became the norm for clippers in the China trade. Iron lower masts were available as an alternative to wood.

The big change in sailing vessels was to iron (and, later, steel) construction. British shipyards (particularly on the Clyde) started building significant numbers or iron sailing ships in 1864. This continued until steel construction steadily replaced iron during the 1880s. Smaller British yards continued to build in wood, as did US and Canadian shipyards. US yards produced many large multi-masted wooden schooners from 1879 through to 1909 to transport coal and timber on coastal routes, protected by US laws restricting foreign-built vessels in coastal trade.

advantages and disadvantages of iron

Iron and steel hulls allowed much larger ships to be built - but the crews did not increase greatly with size. By the early 20th century, the steel hulled sailing ships that took grain from Australia to Europe carried 4,000 tons of cargo with a crew of, say, just 25

History (carvel construction)
Now in article

Sail plan

 * Square rig uses sails that, when at rest, are set at right angles ("square") to the line of the keel. This is in contrast to fore-and-aft rig, in which the at-rest position of the sails follows the line of the keel. Square sails are normally set below and supported by yards. Square rig has existed since, at the latest, Pharaonic Egypt, but has existed in different versions through history. Ships of much of the classical period had square sails with distinctive lead rings which took brailing lines which were used to both furl and reef the sail. This meant that most of the sail handling was done from the deck. Larger classical period ships had more than one mast, sometimes with more than one sail per mast. Square rig essentially disappeared from the Mediterranean for the Middle Ages, but was used extensively in Northern Europe. Viking warships and cargo vessels, and types such as the cog had a single mast with a single square sail. This was set by hoisting the yard from deck level. Though reefing points were used to reduce sail (in higher winds), bonnets became popular. Square rig was combined with the lateen sail in the 15th century, giving types such as the carrack, with two square-rigged masts and a lateen mizzen

notes on reefing
Casson p21 Pharaonic ships - no evidence of reefing p 37-39 the use of brails as, arguably, a method of shortening sail - 1200 BC, though of course this technology may have predated its earliest evidence p 69-70brails (again) in context of 6th century BC ships p 269 deductions from ancient text that suggest a lateen rig, where in strong winds, the sail could not be taken down and replaced with a smaller sail, because the latter had been pawned. p275-277 Some discussion of brails, including how they could be used to alter the balance from a single square sail, so, for instance, reducing lee helm or excessive weather helm. Also a suggestion that this might have been how lateen sails were invented.

Whitewright (The Mediterranean Lateen Sail in Late Antiquity) simplification of the Mediterranean Square Rig - reef points not brails - what was his source on this!!

RC Anderson (the Rigging of Ships in the days of the Spritsail Topmast) bonnets

The Masting and Rigging of English Ships of War, 1625-1860

Harland: Seamanship in the Age of Sail

Learning to sail the Duyfken replica (half-masting of sails, bonnet is "last reef")

Bonnets, reef points, fixed and hoisting yards, topsail becomes the last square sail as sail is reduced - previously it was the course

Viking craft?

Age of Sail
Merchant sailing vessels coexisted with steamships for much of the 19th century. The popular view that steam competed with sail over this period is regarded as simplistic. Shipowners would order whichever type of merchant vessel would make them a profit. In recessionary times, the building of new sailing ships increased while steamship orders reduced. This happened in 1873-79, 1882-86 and 1890-96. With lower operating costs, and with less pressure to get a return on a large capital cost, sailing vessels could afford to wait for a cargo, when a steamer would probably be compelled to take the ship out of service, pay off the crew and lay up.

Steamship routes were established early in the 19th century: the English Channel, Irish Sea and British North Sea ports had services set up in the 1820s; in the 1830s the length of the Mediterranean was covered, with an overland link at Suez to India; in the 1840s scheduled transatlantic routes began. However, these services were costly, conveying largely passengers and high value/low volume cargoes. The steam engines in use ran at low pressures and consequently had very poor fuel efficiency. Poor fuel efficiency did not only affect the cost of fuelling for a voyage. The coal took up space that would otherwise earn money by carrying cargo. More coal needed more stokers to fuel the boilers, and more crew accommodation space was needed.

Over this time the transition was made from paddle wheels to screw propulsion, but further technological improvements were needed for steamships to work in broader sectors of the market.

The development of new steamship routes relied not only on more efficient engines, but the establishment of bunkering stations at distant ports. This could be a substantial cost.

Both sail and steam went through significant developments and changes in this century

Uses
Schooners were used for a very wide range of purposes. On a hull designed for speed, the ability to sail close to the wind was important for privateers and blockade runners. It was a schooner, HMS Pickle, that carried the news of the Battle of Trafalgar to Britain.

After the ban on the transatlantic slave trade by both Britain in 1807 and the USA in 1808, Baltimore Clippers were much used as slave ships, using speed and weatherliness to outrun the warships of the West Africa Squadron. (The Royal Navy soon started using captured slavers to chase and catch them.) Schooners, some of them former slavers, were one type used as Opium Clippers, taking opium to sell in China to finance the purchase of tea that was shipped back to Britain.

In other merchant use, schooners were used both for coastal trade and on longer routes. In British waters, schooners became particularly common in the second half of the 19th century, with many small ports having substantial fleets. Some of these were engaged on deep sea routes, such as the fast sailing fruit schooners, travelling to the Azores or the Mediterranean. Others would sail from the Mediterranean to Newfoundland with a cargo of salt, collect dried or salted cod, much of which was shipped to the Mediterranean again, where fruit was loaded for a voyage back to the home port in Britain. Schooners were important in the British coastal trade because they could be handled in confined waters more easily, and with smaller crews, than the small square rigged ships (such as brigs) with which they competed. Different hull forms were used here; an important consideration was the ability to dry out in tidal harbours without straining the hull.

The pilot boats that served some regions were sometimes rigged as schooners, and gentlemen's yachts used the rig. Schooners predominated in the early years of the America's Cup. The fishing vessels that worked the Grand Banks of Newfoundland were schooners, and held in high regard as an outstanding development. Packet boats (built for the fast conveyance of passengers and goods) were often schooners - Scottish Maid being influential through having a fast-sailing hull that was designed to exploit Britain's New Measurement tonnage law of 1836. This gave rise to the "Aberdeen bow" that was used on many clippers.

Ship's boat


A longboat is a type of ship's boat that became common circa 1500. The longboat was usually the largest boat carried and was used for transporting heavy weights, such as guns, casks of drinking water, or for carrying a kedge anchor into position and then retrieving it with its buoy rope after use. It also usually had the largest passenger carrying capacity. Longboats were used by both warships and merchant ships.

A longboat was fitted so that it could be propelled either by oars or by sail. The oars were double-banked - with two oarsmen on each thwart, each using an oar on their own side. The usual rig was single masted, with a gaff mainsail and two headsails - the jib was set on a bowsprit and the staysail to the stemhead. A windlass was usually installed for working anchors - a davit at the stern gave a lead from the windlass to an anchor that was being raised. Water would be carried in casks that were laid in the bilges between the thwarts.

A ship would usually carry the largest longboat it could store on deck. Consequently their size varied depending on the size of the parent ship. However, too large a boat could interfere with the handling of a ship or her guns, and the weight of a longboat could put excessive strain on the masts and yards which were used for hoisting the boat in and out of the water. Smaller ships might carry a yawl instead of a longboat. The sizes of longboats in the Royal Navy in circa 1705 were recorded in a shipwrights notebook as follows.

The Royal Navy started to replace longboats with launches from November 1780. This instruction was implemented for all ships of 20 guns and above being built or coming in for repair. There are earlier instances of individual warships requesting a launch instead of a longboat, with several examples in the 1740s. The advantages of a launch were ease of use in carrying water and stores and a greater number of passengers being accommodated. However a longboat was considered to be more seaworthy. The comments, in 1742, of the navy dockyard at Deptford refer to the experience of an East Indiaman using a launch. However, longboats could be found in merchant service after the Royal Navy had ceased to use them.

cutter
A cutter is a type of watercraft - but the term has several different and relatively unrelated meanings. In its earliest use, the word referred to a hull type designed for speed, which then became associated with the rig used. In modern usage, the term "cutter" usually applies to the sailplan of a sailing vessel, though it may apply to a powered vessel used by a government agency, such as the US Coast Guard or the UK Border Force. In historic usage, a cutter may be a type of ship's boat, a fast-sailing, decked vessel used by navies or coastguards (and privateers and smugglers), or a boat that took pilots to and from larger vessels.

V 2.0 A cutter is a type of watercraft. The term can have a number of meanings, depending on date, place and context.

Originally a cutter was a type of hull, designed for speed, originating in the middle of the 18th century. These were beamy vessels which typically carried a huge amount of sail.

At about the same time, a cutter was a particular type of ship's boat.

The hull type became associated with a single-masted rig, and this type of vessel was often used by navies or coast guards to police home waters.

The commonest modern meanings are a type of single-masted sailplan, or a seagoing vessel used by government agencies primarily for law enforcement. v 2.01A cutter is a type of watercraft. The term can have a number of meanings, depending on date, place and context. A common meaning is a type of single-masted rig (or sailplan) in a sailing vessel, but with different definitions in different parts of the world. A

A cutter is a type of watercraft. The term has several meanings. It can apply to the rig (or sailplan) of a sailing vessel (but with regional differences in definition), to governmental enforcement agency vessel (such as a coastguard or border force cutter), to a type of ship's boat which can be used under sail or oars, or, historically, to a type of small fast-sailing vessel introduced in the 18th century, some of which were used as small warships.

The sailplan
As a type of sailing rig, a cutter is a single masted sailing vessel with two or more headsails. In British waters and in modern times, this would be compared with a sloop, which has only one headsail - and that would be the full extent of this definition.

In American waters, in older usage, and to the owner or sailor of traditional boats, the difference between a sloop and a cutter is more complex. The differentiating point is whether the bowsprit is standing (i.e. permanently fixed) or running (easily removable). The sloop's standing bowsprit provides an attachment point for the forestay that is in front of the stemhead (the front of the hull at deck level), which in turn allows the mast to be stepped further forward. An example of this is the Friendship sloop, a sailing boat that has two headsails, but is still referred to as a sloop. Under the same definition, a cutter has a running bowsprit; the inner headsail (closest to the mast, and usually referred to as the staysail) is set on a forestay that attaches at or inboard of the stemhead. Consequently the mast is stepped further aft than in a sloop so that there is a foretriangle of adequate size. Additional headsails (a jib and possibly a flying jib) are set on a traveller that is hauled out along the bowsprit. These are often set flying (not hanked on to a stay).

Government agencies
Government agencies, such as the UK Border Force or the United States Coast Guard (USCG) use the term cutter to describe modern patrol craft that have crew accommodation and endurance that allows them to stay at sea for a number of days. The USCG define cutters as being at least 65 feet long.

Definition
As a sailplan, there are definitions of differing levels of complexity and with some regional variation. In the simplest usage, a cutter is a single masted fore and aft rig with two headsails set on different stays. These would usually be referred to as the staysail (the headsail set closest to the mast) and the jib (set forward of and usually somewhat above the staysail). There may also be additional headsails, such as a flying jib. The rig may be used with or without a bowsprit.

Historically, and in the USA, the position of the mast and the design of the bowsprit may make a vessel with two or more headsails a sloop. Particularly in historical usage, a cutter had a running bowsprit - i.e. a bowsprit that was not permanently fixed in place and could be taken inboard in heavy weather or when in harbour. The jib or jibs were therefore set "flying" (not hanked to a permanent forestay). This contrasts with a sloop, where the bowsprit is not movable and has a permanent stay or stays running to the bowsprit on which headsails are set. In modern USA terminology, if the forestay goes to the end of the bowsprit, that fits the definition of a sloop. In both historical and USA use, a cutter has the mast stepped further aft than in a sloop. An example of this is the Friendship Sloop.

A modern puzzle on sloop/cutter definition is the categorisation of the trimaran B&Q, sailed by Ellen MacArthur in 2004. This boat has multiple headsails, of different sizes, each set on its own roller reefing headstay. Because only one of the choice of headsails was set at any one time, the designer termed the rig a sloop.

History
The jib may be set on a stay running to a bowsprit, or to the stemhead (the very front of the hull). Early cutter rig almost invariably had a gaff mainsail, but it is now common to have a Bermudan mainsail.

The cutters used by government agencies, such as the US Coast Guard or the UK Border Force take their name from the historic sailing craft with the same name that were used for the same job. The modern vessels have the ability to carry out extended patrols. The UK Border Force cutters are 42 metres long, the USCG cutters are larger, with, for example, a new design at 110 metres long.

The type of ship's boat termed a cutter was an open boat which could be propelled either by sail or oar. They were built of various sizes (depending on the size of the ship they belonged to), could have various sailing rigs (though were usually a two-masted lug rig) and the oars could either be single or double banked. The number of oars varied with the size of the boat. They originated in the 18th century and were common in naval use until the second half of the 20th century.

The historic naval or coastguard cutter was a fast armed sailing vessel. Their hulls had fine lines and a lot of deadrise, but were broad in relation to their length. They could carry an enormous amount of sail. Their single-masted rig had both fore and aft sails and square sails. The bowsprit and mainsail boom both extended a substantial distance beyond the hull. They were a well-established type by 1760. Examples steadily increased in size: HMS Fly, purchased in 1763 was just over 78 tons, but within 20 years naval cutters were being built at 180 tons, which was the practical size limit for this sort of vessel. (Some of these largest cutters were converted to brigs before being brought into service.)

Pilot cutters were common in the Bristol Channel and the entrance to the English Channel



Yawl


A Yawl is a type of boat. The term has several meanings. It can apply to the rig (or sailplan), to the hull type or to the use which the vessel is put.

As a rig, a yawl is a two masted, fore and aft rigged sailing vessel with mizzen mast positioned abaft (behind) the rudder post, or in some instances, very close to the rudder post. This is different from a ketch, where the mizzen mast is forward of the rudder post. The sail area of the mizzen on a yawl is consequentially notably smaller than the same sail on a ketch.

As a hull type, yawl may refer to many types of open, clinker-built, traditional working craft that operated from the beaches of the British Isles. These boats are considered to be linked to the Viking or Nordic design tradition. Most of these types are now extinct, but they include the Norfolk and Sussex beach yawls (called "yols" by the men who crewed them), which were probably the fastest-sailing open boats ever built.

A yawl is also a type of ships boat. The definition, size, number of oars and sailing rig varied over time. This was one of the normal working boats carried by a ship in the age of sail.

In local usage, the term yawl was sometimes applied to working craft which did not fit any of the definitions given above. An example of this is the Whitstable yawl, a decked gaff-cutter-rigged fishing smack that dredged for oysters.

The etymology of "yawl" is obscure - especially considering the different meanings of the word.

Origins
Yawl rig appears to have originated in the early 19th century. Working craft of this type include the later versions of the Falmouth Quay Punt - and interest in this local type were taken by Dixon Kemp, an authority on yacht racing, in 1875. Yachts were rigged as yawls as early as 1814. John MacGregor had his 1867-built Rob Roy designed as a yawl. (MacGregor had a number of boats, all of the same name.) British and European racing yachts were rigged as yawls from the second half of the 1870s, with a resurgence in popularity from 1896, when a change to the handicap rating system gave advantages to yawls. They remained prominent in handicap classes through the 1920s - with yachts like Rendezvous (built 1913) measuring 74 feet and setting 5,500 square feet of sail.

Rig characteristics
A yawl is often considered a suitable sail for a short handed or single handed sailor. This is because the mainsail is not quite so big to handle and the mizzen (before the days of modern self steering gear) could allow the sails to be trimmed to keep a boat on the same course. Also, handing (taking down) the mizzen is a quick and easy way of reducing sail, often thought of as the equivalent of the first reef in a cutter or sloop. Less well known are the advantages of setting a mizzen staysail when reaching, which can give a considerable amount of extra drive - which is clearly not available to a single-masted rig. Alec Rose (single handed circumnavigator) used a mizzen staysail on his yawl Lively Lady but did not set a mizzen - he felt it was of little value (and it would interfere with the Hasler self-steering gear).

Current examples
Yawls are currently popular in cruising dinghies. The popular Drascombe Lugger is a good example of this type. With the mizzen sheeted to an outrigger or boomkin and a jib set on a bowsprit, the rig extends a lot horizontally. This allows the sail area to have a lower centre of pressure than, for example, a Bermudan sloop. This gives a lower heeling moment.

The hull type
Before "yawl" became the name of a rig, it was a hull type. Generally, a yawl is a double-ended, clinker built open boat, which can be worked under sail or oar.

In the North of Scotland, the word denoted a yole shaped hull: double-ended and clinker-built, with flared sides. The Stroma yole is a good example. "Yawl" was often loosely used for any small open boat.

The traditional small working boats of the East coast of Britain have designs that show their origins from the Norwegian yole or yawl. In the purest form this was a double ended, clinker-built hull, with flared sides. The strong relationship in Shetland is unsurprising, as many of their boats were supplied from Norway - either complete or pre-fabricated. An example of this is the order, dated 20 July 1733, sent by a James Wallace to Bergen for "...thirty four-oared yoals, but no six-oared boats...". (The four-oared and six-oared boats are presumably the rowing and sailing boats known as foureens and sixareens)

The Stroma yole is a good example, and the

Joshua Slocum converted Spray temporarily to a yawl in 1895 for the more difficult part of his solo circumnavigation.

two-masted sailing craft, the mizzen, or aft-most mast, of which is much shorter than the mainmast and is positioned aft of the rudderstock.

WW2 start of war in Pacific
Japan, already at war with the Republic of China, wanted control of natural resources, particularly oil. The United States had imposed oil sanctions on Japan on [date?] [reason]. Startingn 7 Dec /8 Dec 1941 Japan attacked American and British military bases and territories across the Pacific and East Asian area, with the main objective of capturing the oil fields and refineries in the Dutch East Indies [link needed]. These attacks included the Attack on Pearl Harbor, air raids on the US Far East Air Force based in the Philippines and landings in Malaya – all of which we

for WW2
some mention of land based aircraft against ships should be mentioned Battle of Atlantic, Battle of the Bismarck Sea, sinking of the Prince of Wales HMS Prince of Wales (53) etc.

Advances were made in nearly every aspect of naval warfare, most notably the development of sea/air warfare, and submarine and anti-submarine warfare. The actions at Taranto, Pearl Harbor, and the Coral Sea established the carrier as the dominant capital ship in place of the battleship, whilst land-based aircraft played a key role in the battle of the atlantic.

Advances were made in nearly every aspect of naval warfare, most notably with aircraft carriers and submarines. Although aeronautical warfare had relatively little success at the start of the war, actions at Taranto, Pearl Harbor, and the Coral Sea established the carrier as the dominant capital ship in place of the battleship. In the Atlantic, escort carriers proved to be a vital part of Allied convoys, increasing the effective protection radius and helping to close the Mid-Atlantic gap. Carriers were also more economical than battleships because of the relatively low cost of aircraft and their not requiring to be as heavily armoured. Submarines, which had proved to be an effective weapon during the First World War, were anticipated by all sides to be important in the second.

Both Britain and Germany entered World War 2 with, respectively, fewer anti-submarine escort vessels and U-boats than they needed. Despite interwar spending limitations, effective sonar, together with associated skills in anti-submarine tactics had been developed by the Royal Navy — and there had been some preparation to institute an immediate convoy system. The Kriegsmarine had U-boats, such as the Type VII submarine, which were essentially modern developments of the boats used in World War 1. However, wolfpack tactics made the this force a significant threat, though co-ordination by radio was its ultimate downfall.

The Allied introduction and continual development of both ship and aircraft mounted radar, further development of sonar, the use of shore-based and, crucially, ship-bourne radio direction finding equipment improved the detection of submarines. Better depth charges, and innovations such as the Leigh light, the hedgehog and squid ahead-throwing anti-submarine weapons, and air-launched homing torpedoes together with operational research and continual training improved the Allied ability to destroy or suppress submarines. The Kriegsmarine developed radar detectors, the submarine bubble target (a sonar decoy) and the schnorkel. The type XXI U-boat, a massive improvement on earlier types, was produced too late to have any effect in the war, but introduced concepts used in the submarines of the cold war era.

Llewellyn-Jones, Malcolm. The Royal Navy and Anti-Submarine Warfare, 1917-49 (Cass Series: Naval Policy and History). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.

The British focused development on anti-submarine weaponry and tactics, such as sonar and convoys, while Germany focused on improving its offensive capability, with designs such as the and wolfpack tactics.

Gradually, improving Allied technologies such as the Leigh light, hedgehog, squid, and homing torpedoes proved victorious over the German submarines.

The allies introduced steady improvements of existing technology, making ship-bourne and aircraft-mounted radar common in improving versions; sonar became widespread with improving models and extensive training; ship-mounted radio direction finding was highly effective against wolfpack tactics. Wartime innovations included the Leigh light, hedgehog, squid, and air-launched homing torpedoes proved victorious over the German submarines. German developments included the shnorkel and the submarine bubble target.

WW2 talk page
One can justify the listing of the main axis or allied leaders in a world war as follows: Hitler/Germany - the primary belligerent (yes, China was fighting first, but without the rest of it, that would have been a war in just one country - albeit a large country) Hirohito/Japan - moved the war into a new hemisphere (so adding to the "world" bit of war) and deeply altered the makeup of the entire region when the war was over (though not in the way the Japanese had intended) Mussolini/Italy - moved the war outside its original geographical boundaries: key to this was making the Mediterranean a naval war-zone, challenging Britain's (naval) military advantage, with long term consequences for British involvement in the Far East. Churchill/Britain - the first country to declare war, did not seek peace when France fell, cajoled Roosevelt/USA into support of war effort, anti-submarine warfare capability of Britain/Canada made early US involvement in Europe feasible Stalin/Russia - the bulk of fighting was on the Russian front, but also Stalin's manipulation of his allies changed the political map of Europe for most of the rest of the 20th century Roosevelt/USA - manufacturing capability and the resources to fight in 2 hemispheres For Romania, we have provision of about a third of the oil used by Germany and a large number of troops in (largely) the Stalingrad campaign. Their oil would have been used by the Germans whether the Romanians agreed or not. The Romanian troops were probably more important. But I don't see any participation by Romania that affected the "world" element of a world war. Clearly their role was important, but as only a major supporter

Gig








Clipper
A clipper was a commercial sailing vessel designed specifically for speed. The term can be applied to a craft of any rig, but most of the clippers that were in the tea, wool and California trades were fully rigged ships, with square rig on three masts. An early type was the schooner rigged Baltimore clipper, a type which started to be built at the end of the 18th century. Opium clippers were used in trade between India and China, Clipper ships intended for the tea trade between Britain and China were mostly built over the period from 1849 (the date of the repeal of the Navigation Act) to a little after 1869 (when the Suez Canal opened). Generally, American clipper ships were intended for the California trade, between the East Coast of the United States and (most often) San Francisco, via Cape Horn. This route saw heightened demand during the California Gold Rush. When the tea trade was progressively taken over by steamers in the early years of the 1870s, many tea clippers started carrying wool from Australia to Britain.

American clippers were generally larger ships of over 1000 tons, so as to withstand the heavy seas of the Southern Ocean. British tea clippers were designed to cross the China Sea quickly, and the resulting hull forms were

Some American clippers engaged in the tea trade from China to England

Definitions
There is no absolute definition of a clipper. The maritime historian David MacGregor gives four defining characteristics. These are: 1. A fine-lined hull 2. A streamlined appearance to the hull 3. A large sail area 4.A master with the skill, determination and courage to obtain the best speed.

A "fine-lined" hull is one which is shaped to move through the water with the least resistance. Naval architects measure this with the block coefficient of fineness.

Decline
The American clippers sailing from the East Coast to the California goldfields were working in a booming market. Freight rates were high everywhere in the first years of the 1850s. This started to fade in late 1853. The ports of California and Australia reported that they were overstocked with goods shipped earlier in the year. The accelerating fall in freight rates was halted, however, by the start of the Crimean War in March 1854, as many ships were now being chartered by the French and British governments. The end of the Crimean War in April 1856 released all this capacity back on the world shipping markets - the result being a severe slump. The next year saw the panic of 1857, which had effects on both sides of the Atlantic. The USA was just starting to recover from this in 1861 when the Civil War started.

The economic cycle's effect on the building of clippers in the USA



for later
In an attempt to wrap up this matter (1) no source has been put forward to support the idea that this event can fairly be described as "running a blockade". This subject has been flagged on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. This has not produced any sources to support the term. (2) a source used by the article, Run the Gauntlet, the Channel Dash 1942 by Ken Ford uses the word "blockade" only once. It says "The Royal Navy knew that they could not blockade the port....". From that an editor must conclude that this source says that no blockade was in place. (3) as per discussion above, authoritative sources that could state that a blockade was in place at the time of the Channel Dash choose not to do so. (4) as stated above, any material put in an article must be supportable by a reliable source - the burden of proof is on the editor putting the material in the article (5) the term "ran a British blockade" appears only in the lead of the article. There is no mention of a blockade elsewhere. The article has therefore been changed to use language that is supported by a source. The source chosen is Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class, by Koop and Schmolke, which is already used in the article. The logic is that this is a book by specialist authors that is solely about the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. It also has the advantage that the authors are German, so this reduces any potential Anglo-centric bias of the sources. On page 111 this source says "The constant danger of air attack coupled with the abandonment of plans for a new Atlantic sortie following the sinking of the Bismarck convinced the Naval Staff that the heavy units had to be evacuated from Brest for deployment elsewhere." This language seems broadly consistent with other more general naval histories of WW2. Therefore the article has been edited to match the cited source.

George Leveson-Gower
Leveson-Gower was born in 1758, the son of the Marquess of Stafford. In 1785 he married Elizabeth, daughter of the Earl of Sutherland. She had inherited the Earldom and its associated estates following a well-known legal case which established the unusual principle that the Earldom could pass through the female as well as the male line.

In the early nineteenth century the couple initiated sweeping reforms to their estate in Sutherland. The Duke delegated most of the running of the Sutherland estate to his wife, who took an active interest in the task. The Duke did, as perhaps the wealthiest person in Britain at the time, provide the huge amount of money that was invested in the estate, building roads, bridges and harbours, and sinking a coal mine (the only one in the Highlands).

Opinion on the Duke varies. Modern historians generally take the view that he and his wife were shocked by the poor living condition of their tenants and the outdated agricultural practices used. Advised to follow the latest economic and social theories they decided to resettle the population in new villages along the coast to make way for large sheep farms inland. These new settlements were intended to provide work in a range of non-agricultural industries as well as providing labour for the new, larger farms. The same historians tend to regard the Sutherland Clearances as a failed social experiment. Even James Loch, the key advisor to the Sutherlands on the running of their estates, later conceded that they did too much, too quickly in trying to modernise. The large capital investments made by the Duke achieved such a poor return that they could be considered, in the view of Professor Eric Richards as "a loss to the nation".

The more populist view on the Duke of Sutherland is that that he decided it would be more profitable for the estate to turn the land over to large scale sheep farming, and so the tenants would have to go, whether they wanted to or not.

Some would say that he was shocked by the conditions his tenants were living in and he became convinced that the interior of Sutherland could not support these subsistence farmers long term. Advised to follow the latest economic and social theories he decided to resettle the population in new villages along the coast to make way for large sheep farms inland. The other - and probably more common view - is

Either way, these reforms led to thousands of people being evicted from their homes and farms. There are many accounts of people being forcibly evicted and houses, even whole settlements, being set on fire by the over zealous actions of the people employed by the Duke. The Sutherland clearances were not by any means the only clearances - this period saw similar occurrences throughout Scotland, not just in the Highlands but in many rural lowland areas as well. However the Sutherland clearances are among the most notorious.

Leveson-Gower was created first Duke of Sutherland for his services to politics in 1833, just a few months before his death. He died in July of that year at Dunrobin Castle and was buried at Dornoch Cathedral. In 1834 a subscription was started in order to pay for a monument in his memory. Subscriptions came in from far and wide, which is surprising given his reputation today. Work soon began and the stone for the massive base and plinth was quarried from the north east side of Ben Bhraggie, just 50 yards or so from the monument's location. The statue itself was sculpted by Sir Francis Chantrey and it was taken up to the top of the Ben in pieces by horse and cart. The monument, all 100 feet of it, was completed in 1837 and it has dominated the views of east Sutherland ever since. It is known locally as the "Mannie".

Modern era
A steady shift away from Scottish Gaelic continued into and through the modern era. Some of this was driven by policy decisions by government or other organisations, some originated from social changes. In the last quarter of the 20th century, efforts began  to encourage use of the language.

The Statutes of Iona, enacted by James VI in 1609, was one piece of legislation that addressed, among other things, the Gaelic language. It compelled the heirs of clan chiefs to be educated in lowland, protestant, English-speaking schools. James VI took several such measures to impose his rule on the Highland and Island region. In 1616 the Privy Council proclaimed that schools teaching in English should be established. Gaelic was seen, at this time, as one of the causes of the instability of the region. It was also associated with catholicism.

The Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge (SSPCK) was founded in 1709. They met in 1716, immediately after the failed Jacobite rebellion of 1715, to consider the reform and civilisation of the Highlands, which they sought to achieve by teaching English and the protestant religion. Initially their teaching was entirely in English, but soon the impracticality of educating Gaelic-speaking children in this way gave rise to a modest concession: in 1723 teachers were allowed to translate English words in the Bible into Gaelic to aid comprehension, but there was no further permitted use. Other less prominent schools worked in the Highlands at the same time, also teaching in English. This process of anglicisation paused when evangelical preachers arrived in the Highlands, convinced that people should be able to read religious texts in their own language. The first well-known translation of the Bible into Scottish Gaelic was made in 1767 when Dr James Stuart of Killin and Dugald Buchanan of Rannoch produced a translation of the New Testament. In 1798 4 tracts in Gaelic were published by the Society for Propagating the Gospel at Home. 5,000 copies of each were printed. Other publications followed, with a full Gaelic Bible in 1801. The influential and effective Gaelic Schools Society was founded in 1811. Their purpose was to teach Gaels to read the Bible in their own language. In the first quarter of the 19th century, the SSPCK (despite their anti-Gaelic attitude in prior years) and the British and Foreign Bible Society distributed 60,000 Gaelic Bibles and 80,000 New Testaments. It is estimated that this overall schooling and publishing effort gave some 300,000 people in the Highlands some basic literacy.

Counterintuitively, access to schooling in Gaelic increased knowledge of English. In 1829 the Gaelic Schools Society reported that parents were unconcerned about their children learning Gaelic, but were anxious to have them taught English. The SSPCK also found Highlanders to have significant prejudice against Gaelic. T M Devine attributes this to an association between English and the prosperity of employment: the Highland economy relied greatly on seasonal migrant workers travelling outside the Gàidhealtachd. In 1863, an observer sympathetic to Gaelic stated that "knowledge of English is indispensible to any poor islander who wishes to learn a trade or to earn his bread beyond the limits of his native Isle." Generally, rather than Gaelic speakers, it was Celtic societies in the cities and professors of Celtic from universities who sought to preserve the language.

The Education (Scotland) Act 1872 provided universal education in Scotland, but completely ignored Gaelic in its plans. The mechanism for supporting Gaelic through the Education Codes issued by the Scottish Education Department were steadily used to overcome this ban, with many concessions in place by 1918. However, the members of Highland school boards tended to have anti-Gaelic attitudes and served as an obstacle to Gaelic education in the late 19th and early 20th century.

Very few European languages have made the transition to a modern literary language without an early modern translation of the Bible; the lack of a well-known translation may have contributed to the decline of Scottish Gaelic.

In the 21st century, Scottish Gaelic literature has seen development within the area of prose fiction publication, as well as challenges due to the continuing decline of the language.

Scottish Gaelic has a rich oral (beul-aithris) and written tradition, having been the language of the bardic culture of the Highland clans for many years. The language preserves knowledge of and adherence to pre-feudal laws and customs, the salience of which was evident in the complaints and claims of the Highland Land League in the late 19th century, which elected MPs to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. However, the language suffered under centralization efforts by the Scottish and later British states, especially after the Battle of Culloden in 1746, during the Highland Clearances, and by the exclusion of Scottish Gaelic from the educational system. Even before then, charitable schools operated by the Society in Scotland for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge (SSPCK) used instructional methods designed to suppress the language in favour of English and corporal punishment against students using Gaelic. This was counterbalanced by the activities of the Gaelic Schools Society, founded in 1811. the 19th century, the SSPCK and the British and Foreign Bible Society distributed 60,000 Gaelic Bibles and 80,000 New TestameTheir primary purpose was to teach Gaels literacy in their own language, with emphasis on being able to read the Bible. In the first quarter ofnts.

The first well-known translation of the Bible into Scottish Gaelic was made in 1767 when Dr James Stuart of Killin and Dugald Buchanan of Rannoch produced a translation of the New Testament. The translation of the entire Bible was completed in 1801. In the first quarter of the 19th century, the SSPCK and the British and Foreign Bible Society distributed 60,000 Gaelic Bibles and 80,000 New Testaments.

new lead
The Highland Clearances (Fuadaichean nan Gàidheal, the "eviction of the Gaels") were the evictions of a significant number of tenants in the Scottish Highlands, mostly in the period 1750 to 1860. The Clearances are considered by some to have a broader definition than just those who were evicted.

In the first phase, clearance resulted from agricultural improvement, driven by the need for landlords to increase their income (many landlords had crippling debts, with bankruptcy playing a large part in the history). This involved the enclosure of the open fields managed on the run rig system and the shared grazing. Especially in the North and West of the region, these were usually replaced with large scale pastoral farms stocked with sheep, on which much higher rents were paid, with the displaced tenants getting alternative tenancies in newly created crofting communities, where they were expected to be employed in industries such as fishing, quarrying or the kelp industry. The reduction in status from farmer to crofter was one of the causes of resentment from these changes.

The second phase (c.1815-20 to 1850s), involved overcrowded crofting communities that had lost the means to support themselves, through famine and/or collapse of industries that they had relied on (such as the kelp trade), as well as continuing population growth. This is when "assisted passages" were common, when landowners paid the fares for their tenants to emigrate. Tenants who were selected for this had, in practical terms, little choice but to emigrate. The Highland Potato Famine struck towards the end of this period, giving greater urgency to the process.

Agriculture in the Highlands had always been marginal, with famine a recurrent risk for pre-clearance communities. Nevertheless, population levels increased steadily through the 18th and early 19th century. This increase continued through nearly all of the time of the clearances, peaking in 1851, at around 300,000. Emigration was part of Highland history before and during the clearances, and reached its highest level after them. During the first phase of the clearances, emigration could be considered a form of resistance to the loss of status being imposed by a landlord’s social engineering.

The eviction of tenants went against dùthchas, the principle that clan members had an inalienable right to rent land in the clan territory. This was never recognised in Scottish law. It was gradually abandoned by clan chiefs as they began to think of themselves simply as commercial landlords, rather than as patriarchs of their people – a process that arguably started with the Statutes of Iona. The clan members continued to rely on dùthchas. This different viewpoint was an inevitable source of grievance. The actions of landlords varied. Some did try to delay or limit evictions, often to their financial cost. The Countess of Sutherland genuinely believed her plans were advantageous for those resettled in crofting communities and could not understand why tenants complained. A few landlords displayed complete lack of concern for evicted tenants.

There is a substantial distance between the understanding of the Highland clearances held by historians and the popular view of these events. The subject was largely ignored by academic historians until the publication of a book by the journalist John Prebble in 1963. However, a substantial body of academic work now exists on the subject (differing significantly from Prebble's), to the extent that there is even an argument that the balance of work in Scottish history is excessively tilted toward the Highlands.

Historiography and view in popular culture
The Highland clearances received no serious academic historical investigation until the second half of the 20th century. Michael Gray's The Highland Economy 1750-1850 (1957) devoted about 10 pages to clearance and took a position supporting the actions of landlords. A range of professional historians who published in the 1960s and 1970s held similar opinions. More influential (and with much greater sales), was the Highland Clearances by the journalist John Prebble, published in 1963. Without the constraints of academic rigour, Prebble addressed the subject from the viewpoint of those evicted. His sources included the polemical accounts published in the 1880s to influence the outcome of the crofters war, and various other passionate and highly partisan works. Though historians tend to recognise the importance of Prebble's work in bringing the subject to attention, it has little support as a work of history. However, it arrived in a near-vacuum of detailed historical study of the clearances.

In 1976, James Hunter published the Making of the Crofting Community. This work arose out of Hunter's PhD thesis and he was motivated by the stories told by his grandfather of clearance affecting his family. Hunter's intent was to "put the crofter at the centre of his own history". His treatment of evicting landlords was entirely unsympathetic. Historians were polarised into supporters and detractors, but academic attention was now brought to the subject. Hunter chose not to support Prebble's opinions in the 1976 edition. However, the preface to the 2000 edition makes clear a number of changes of mind. Prebble is rehabilitated. Hunter's absolute criticism of landlords during the Highland Potato Famine is tempered based on the statistical analyses of estate and other records in T M Devine's The Great Highland Famine (1995), which demonstrated much more responsible landlord behaviour than Hunter had originally thought (based on a much smaller sample size). Hunter also notes criticism of the 1976 edition from Marianne McLean in the People of Glengarry, stating that Highlanders who emigrated had a much better opinion of their experiences, recognising the opportunities they had gained, as compared with the those who had remained in the Highlands.

The first comprehensive treatment of the subject was Eric Richards' A History of the Highland Clearances (vol 1: 1982, vol 2: 1985). In 2000, Richards usefully summated much of this in a single volume, The Highland Clearances: People, Landlords and Rural Turmoil. Richards' work was based on extensive study of the estate archives which are available. Critics of this approach suggest that it tends to think with the mindset of the landlord. Supporters say that intelligent use of archive material can also give insight to the feelings and opinions of the tenants. Interspersed between Richards' main works were Clanship to Crofters' War (1994) by T M Devine and Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788 (1996) by Allan I. Macinnes, both of which provided social histories of clanship and tracked the origins of the clearances back to a much earlier point in history. They also covered the cultural expectations held by clan members of their chiefs (dùthchas). Devine in particular looks at the economic aspects of clearance in a work that brought together a broad spread of research. Dodgshon added a detailed analysis of the workings of the pre-clearance communities - both as agricultural and social systems - a work that is widely cited by other historians.

The popular view of the clearances tends to ignore this detailed historical work. Both Richards and Devine draw attention to some writers, expanding on the rhetoric of Prebble, who make comparisons with the holocaust or with ethnic cleansing. Research among the Scottish diaspora in North America has shown their understanding of the clearances to be based on Prebble, historical fiction, some websites and visits to heritage sites in Scotland that use these same written sources. Ian Cameron suggests that the historiographical revolution in the study of Highland history makes "an uncomfortable read for those ... who regard Highland history as a repository of information to justify simplistic prejudices."Scottish Economic & Social History, Volume 15 Issue 1, Page 116-118, ISSN 0269-5030 Available Online Sep 2010 (https://doi.org/10.3366/sesh.1995.15.15.116)

The Year of the Sheep
The introduction of large commercial flocks of sheep to the Highlands started gradually in the middle of the 18th century. Inevitably most of these involved eviction of tenants. There had been some instances of resistance to these changes in the 1780s, but a major protest was organised in 1792 in Ross-shire.

The protest action became known as the Ross-shire Insurrection in English and Bliadhna nan Caorach ("Year of the Sheep") in Gaelic. It started at Kildermorie, just south of Strathrusdale. Allan and Alexander Cameron had taken up leases of a new sheep farm at Whitsun 1791. Whilst some of the residents had been evicted, others continued to have grazing rights for their cattle. With the arrival of the Cameron's sheep in 1792, hostility developed over the rather imprecisely defined grazing rights of the two sides. The Camerons started pounding any cattle who strayed onto the sheep grazing. In late June 1792, the situation escalated when all the cattle crossed into the sheep farm, where they were impounded by the Cameron's shepherds. The Strathrusdale people enlisted help from the tenants of the neighouring Ardross estate and set off to free their livestock. In the confrontation with Allan Cameron, the protesters bent the barrels of his shotgun and roughed him up, then set off home with all the impounded cattle.

The humiliated Cameron resorted to law, and a precognition was arranged on 25 July 1792, but witnesses were obstructed on their way to give evidence. Two days later, guests at a Strathrusdale wedding resolved to collect up all the sheep in Ross and Sutherland and drive them South. Word was put out to the residents of Alness, Urquhart, Resolis and Kincardine. On 31 July, the protesters gathered at Strathoykel and other locations. They started to round up all the sheep in the area. Some reports suggest that as many as 10,000 were collected and taken to Boath where, on the 4th August, the Camerons' sheep were added to the flock. It was carefully planned and required the involvement of many in the community.

The local landowners organised resistance to this breakdown in law and order, led by Donald Macleod of Geanies, who served as sheriff depute. Macleod reported to the Lord Advocate in Edinburgh and asked for troops to quell the rebellion. Until they arrived, he took no action against the protesters, as he could not afford to risk losing any confrontation. In the early hours of 5th August, the landowners and government troops moved against those guarding the sheep overnight. Eight prisoners were taken on the scene and a further four at their homes. The insurrection was over.

Watch these pages for no activity
A595_road Bonar Bridge

Wikipedia policies to remember
WP:DUE

Copyrights

Copyrights

Help:Talk pages

Wondered why this site is blacklisted
I noticed that fivebooks.com is on a Wikipedia blacklist. I know not a great deal about this site, but it looks OK to me. How do I find out the reason for the blacklist? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was added to the blacklist in [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki%3ASpam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=427786647 this 2011 edit]. The edit summary suggests it was being mis-used by certain editors. -- John of Reading (talk) 18:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks - given my dislike of spammers, I think I have revised my opinion of the site - even though it produces useful results of related books and the possibly unexpected reasons for picking them. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On reconsideration, now with my brain in gear: the page I looked at was an interview of Prof James Hunter, an expert on Scottish History and particularly the Highland Clearances. Some of the views expressed in the interview are particularly relevant to the modern view of the subject (which needs to be inserted in the article - it's a part of Wikipedia that really needs some work!!). If this is the only source of Prof Hunter expressing these views, how would I get to use the interview as a reference? I have little doubt that the words of an expert in the field qualify the interview as a WP:RS.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You can post a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist for the specific link to be whitelisted. That would keep the entire domain blacklisted except for that one. --Majora (talk) 19:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

referencing discussion
Is there any guidance on Kindle locations (as opposed to page numbers) when citing a reference? At present I just put the Kindle location in where I would put an ordinary page number (example ) - that way I can at least sort this out if it needs changing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)


 * E-books cause some problems because the location may vary depending on the device... location also depends on the font size chosen (and there are other factors which effect location). A more accurate citation would be to give chapter/section and paragraph (which will be the same no matter what device is used, or what font size is chosen, etc). Blueboar (talk) 13:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * My understanding was that Kindle locations are approximately based on word count ( the rule of thumb of 23 words to one Kindle location unit) - so that should be reliable for any device. The problem with some authors, and my example of James Hunter is one, is that they write very long chapters that have no or few identifiable breaks within them.
 * A suggestion might be to have the maximum Kindle location for the book shown as well as the location of the reference. That way one can calculate the percentage through the book that the ref is, and then apply that to the page numbers. So that would mean saying (as in my example above) "Kindle location 5111 of 9196". So that would indicate 56% through the paper version of the book. I suspect this would be a lot more useful than just a chapter number. Counting paragraphs would, I suggest, be error prone with lengthy chapters and equally tedious for anyone checking the reference. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even word counts can be problematic and subject to different software counting in different ways. And enshrining the word "kindle" is a really bad idea. We might as well use the label "Commodore C64 Word count". I would suggest "starting at character X out of X characters" with the count given by Vim, Emacs or wc (Unix) being preferred if by some unlikely chance different software gives us different counts. This can be easily made into a tool that can be used without leaving Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that I follow your apparent dislike of Kindle. It is simply a commercially available method of reading a book (digital text plus either dedicated reader or software.) We use other digital sources on commercial platforms (Google Books, British Newspaper Archive, etc.) The only purpose of a page number or a Kindle location is to allow the reader to check what the reference actually says. This is either the Wikipedia editor function of monitoring the quality of an article, or a general reader wanting to know more than the article says. It is simply a way of finding the text. So, surely the intent has to be to find the easiest and most efficient way of doing that. If the Kindle Location were to be disguised as a character count (this would be a lot of work for the citing editor - not sure even if it is possible), then this would be irritating to another person with the same source on Kindle, as they would have to back-calculate the location. (It would be neutral for the paper-book reader.)
 * I suspect we need some input from someone who knows how definitive Kindle Locations actually are - they seem to be totally repeatable to me. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT if you read the book using a kindle you should say that... however, if you read it on some other type of e-reader (say a nook or a fire) you should note THAT. Which e-reader was used makes a difference, and so needs to be part of the citation.  Blueboar (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT says "....on an e-reader (except to the extent that this affects page numbering)". So someone has noticed the page numbering problem, but we don't appear to have a good solution. (perhaps there is no "good solution") ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re: "I am not sure that I follow your apparent dislike of Kindle. It is simply a commercially available method of reading a book", would it be acceptable for me to start citing sources using the page numbers from a Telcon Zorba? Because that's about how useful those Kindle page numbers will be 20 years after they stop making Kindles. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If YOU read it using a Zorba, yes. That’s what you should say on the citation.  Blueboar (talk) 11:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It would only make a difference if there were an edition specially for that platform. I think we'd only want to know which edition is being read and who published it and when. I suppose if there are no other standard indication of location specific to that edition, then you might also want to note location specific to that platform. older ≠ wiser 12:44, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

(1) I've asked Amazon to explain how one might discover the (paper book) page number from a Kindle location and am awaiting an answer. (2) I've tested my suggestion of calculating the percentage through the book from the Kindle locations and applying to the total pages in a paper book. It does not work if there are references at the end of each chapter in the paper book (so, many academic sources). (It fails because Kindle put all the refs at the end of the book text, but most paper books have them at the end of each chapter.) (3) The suggestion (above) to quote chapter and (if available) section seems to be as good as we get for a solution. (4) I think the suggestion that Kindle may be obsolete in 20 years, though likely to be accurate, is irrelevant as it presumes that Wikipedia, book technology, computers etc. will all still exist in the same way as presently - surely it will all change! So, pending any further guidance or information, I will (a) include the Kindle location (to assist those with the book on Kindle) and (b) include chapter and section (where available). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * ThoughtIdRetired, beyond just citing the entire chapter and hoping that this is a sufficient pointer for most readers, one of the usual "solutions" is to provide a quotation that could be searched for by other people with access to digital copies. Another approach, which works for some books, is to see whether you can search a paper copy (e.g., via Google Books) to find the same section, and copy the page numbers and ISBN from the paper version.  (Note that with some books, such as textbooks with multiple editions, you have to be very careful to make sure that it's actually the same book/still contains the content that you're referencing.)   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I had wondered about using the quotation field - but the precise solution had not occurred to me. I have just tested it, with good results. I found some relatively distinctive text ("essential to reach the Baltic coast") in a Kindle book (Munro, Ronald Lyell. Above the Battle: An Air Observation Post Pilot at War (Kindle Locations 2603-2604). Pen and Sword. Kindle Edition.) and searched for that in the same book on Google books. I note that if the quote is outside the normal "free sample" offered on Google Books, you still get to see it - certainly enough for a page number. Second test with a different book only gave a fragment, but with a page number.
 * There does seem to be an automatic reduction of what you see in Google Books if you repeat a search - so this could be a slow process to page number any quantity of references.
 * My only concern is that this is moderately obscure knowledge (as demonstrated by the time it took for the suggestion to arrive on this page), so would not be readily available to an average encyclopaedia user. It would, however, rescue the original editor and others if the precise location of a reference became a matter of dispute. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On further experimentation- actually putting the ref in an article, I now find that the text can become horribly cluttered. For example this ref does not really work: it gives priority to the Kindle location over the page number and the quote could be irritating with the way it pops up whether it is needed or not.
 * I think the ref would have to appear as and a Kindle user (including the original editor) would have to search for the quote text. It doesn't feel like a complete solution. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:57, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing - not sure if I should have drawn the above to your attention, or if you are watching this page anyway. You appear to have a particular level of expertise on the subject of referencing. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, ThoughtIdRetired,
 * There is no good solution for including page numbers/locations across multiple systems. I'm personally not fond of the rp template.  I usually prefer plain WP:PARENthetical citations, or using separate WP:CITESHORT refs.  CITESHORT, in particular, might be more appropriate here (because long rp labels are distracting).
 * More generally, though, I suggest that you consider whether you really need the page number and the Kindle location and the quotation. If including all three is just for your own convenience as an editor, then you might consider using fake parameters (which will be ignored and not shown to readers), which could look something like this:   .  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that looks like good advice - been a long day, so I'll experiment with your suggestions when I've the time to do the job properly. The note field was something I hadn't spotted. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Admin page
Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Another way of refs with different page numbers
Template:Sfn

For HC talk page
Problems and a solution. I was recently reading WP:DUE, and I became concerned about the balance of the amount of text on various parts of the subject covered by this article. In order to measure the weight given, I used word counts in the article and also in Eric Richards' book The Highland Clearances (since this is a work to which, I imagine, most active editors hereon will have access). Looking at the article, there are approximately 6,326 words in it as it stands. The section on Discrimination is 757 words long, or 12% of the overall article, and this is split into 330 words on religious discrimination and 426 on pseudo-scientific racism.

Going now to Richards, using Kindle location numbers and the rule of thumb of 23 words to one Kindle location unit, this estimates the book at 211,508 words. Using the Kindle search function, I have found 90 words about religious discrimination (page 81, in the section about voluntary emigration). This is 0.04% of the entire book. I have searched for discussion of pseudo-scientific racism or anything similar but not found anything in this work. (Please let me know if I have missed anything.)

So, from this, we see that the article has more words on religious discrimination than an entire book on the Highland Clearances. I do not expect the percentage of the article to be the same as the book, but the large difference tells us something. Nor do I suggest that absence of comment by Richards on the racial discrimination against the Gael to suggest that it should not be included. What is needed is to reduce the prominence given in the article, particularly the length of the relevant section. I think the same conclusion would be reached from a wider study of suitable sources.

We also have the following difficulties: Within the Discrimination section, there is one citation needed and 5 primary sources, 2 of which are used to give direct quotes. This follows on from mentioning a quote by James Hunter (that at least has the advantage that it is derived from a secondary source written by a respected historian working in the subject). Both primary sources and quotes are meant to be avoided, limited or used with care (WP:Primary, WP:LONGQUOTE, WP:quotefarm).

The solution to all the above would appear to be to reduce the size of the Discrimination section. A return to the version of this section that existed on 30 August might be the easiest way to achieve this.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Trouble with cite book template
I am trying to understand why the following reference shows the contributing authors in red. The reference is

This was input using the cite book template.

The reference is not complete - I have more contributors to add, but it is tedious typing if I am not sure if I am doing it right!!

Additionally, the template allows me to put in the full title and honours of the contributing authors, but not the editor - whose full title is Colonel W A Seymour OBE. It seems a bit mean not to get his full name correct.

Thanks, ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The 'authorlink' parameter is for the insertion of a the title of a Wikipedia page where it exists for the author cited. Suggest just cite the authors as normal and place the pages etc. in a 'pages' parameter. Eagleash (talk) 08:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, it is not 'typical' to add titles etc. to authors. It is usually done  and so on. Just the basic details will suffice. As long as you have the book details (incl. the page Nos.) it is not necessary to ad who wrote which parts. Eagleash (talk) 08:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll echo that: no author or editor titles and honors; names only. If you are citing A History of the Ordnance Survey as a whole, listing all of the various contributors is not necessary; rather, just list the editor.  Remember that cs1|2 templates are one-source-per-template only.  So, if citing Edge's writing in chapter 27, write a template that includes Edge as author, Seymore as editor, the chapter title in chapter, consider using chapter-url to deliver the reader to the beginning of the cited chapter, and include all of the other bibliographic information to make the template complete:
 * That pdf is rather large and takes a while to download. If there are individual chapters available, consider linking to them instead.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all - I think I should be able to get this right now (when I get a chance to get back to it). The pdf used to be much quicker to download - OS have done something to their website. There is always the printed book.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all - I think I should be able to get this right now (when I get a chance to get back to it). The pdf used to be much quicker to download - OS have done something to their website. There is always the printed book.

composite construction

fully rigged ship Ship


 * year=
 * origyear=

Refs on a talk page
I am trying to refer twice to the same reference in different parts of Talk:Highland Clearances (the section on Sellar). I can't get the second reference to Richards, Eric (2013). The Highland Clearances. Edinburgh: Birlinn Limited. ISBN 978 1 78027 165 1. to come up. Not sure what I'm doing wrong. I know I've got this to work before, but I can't remember how. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed Refnames that contain spaces must be enclosed in quotes. I also changed your to a. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Units of volume
The displacement, essentially the weight, of a ship is traditionally expressed in long tons. To simplify measurement it is determined by measuring the volume, rather than weight, of water displaced, and calculating the weight from the volume and density. For practical purposes the displacement ton (DT) is a unit of volume, 35 cuft, the approximate volume occupied by one ton of seawater (the actual volume varies with salinity and temperature). It is slightly less than the 224 imperial gallons (1.018 m3) of the water ton (based on distilled water).

One measurement ton or freight ton is equal to 40 cuft, but historically it has had a number of different definitions as explained in the next section. It is sometimes abbreviated as "MTON". The freight ton represents the volume of a truck, train or other freight carrier. In the past it has been used for a cargo ship but the register ton is now preferred. It is correctly abbreviated as "FT" but some users are now using freight ton to represent a weight of 1 t, thus the more common abbreviations are now M/T, MT, or MTON (for measurement ton), which still cause it to be confused with the tonne, or even the megatonne.

The register ton is a unit of volume used for the cargo capacity of a ship, defined as 100 cuft. It is often abbreviated RT or GRT for gross registered ton (The former providing confusion with the refrigeration ton). It is known as a tonneau de mer in Belgium, but, in France, a tonneau de mer is 1.44 m3.

The Panama Canal/Universal Measurement System (PC/UMS) is based on net tonnage, modified for Panama Canal billing purposes. PC/UMS is based on a mathematical formula to calculate a vessel's total volume; a PC/UMS net ton is equivalent to 100 cubic feet of capacity.

The water ton is used chiefly in Great Britain, in statistics dealing with petroleum products, and is defined as 224 impgal, the volume occupied by 1 long ton of water under the conditions that define the imperial gallon.

Freight Ton - historical variation
Particularly in the 19th century, the freight ton applied to different volumes of cargo, depending on variables such as: the nature of the cargo, the port in which the cargo was loaded or the nationality of the ship it was carried in. The measure would invariably be described simply as a "ton", so giving further scope for misunderstanding of historical records. Examples of the varying definitions include the following. Sawn timber was measured at 50 cuft to the ton if sawn or hewn, whilst timber "in the rough" used 40 cuft. Tea loaded by British ships in China used a freight ton of 50 cuft, whilst American ships loaded at 40 cuft to the ton.

more stuff
User and article stats (XI tools) User stats (Supercount)

User stats (Supercount)

LOD

the removal of naval mine

---chart upload---

Style proposal
Follows on from "Gender Neutral Article" section (above).

This article was originally written with female pronouns ("she", "her") to refer to the ship. This style existed from 21 January 2006 until 19:28, 12 July 2010, when it was altered to the genderless "it" and "its". There was no preceding discussion on the talk page and the edit summary did not mention this change. This would appear to be a straightforward breach of the Manual of Style. It may be of note that the editor involved in this change now cites the relevant rule to defend the current choice of style.

The result of this undiscussed change is that this article no longer follows the style adopted by (1) other Wikipedia articles on similar subjects, such as ships in Category:Tea clippers (details in extended content), or articles such as Clipper, etc. (2) the majority of specialist books on similar ships, both newly published and older books (3) virtually all the historical material on this and similar vessels, including diaries, newspaper reports, Lloyd's Register, etc.

One could give particular emphasis to the usage employed in the diaries written by people who emigrated to Australia on this ship ("she") (see extended content) and the Wikipedia article on the only other surviving clipper Cutty Sark (also using the feminine pronoun). The usage ("she") by the director of the project to restore City of Adelaide in the journal of the Royal Institute of Naval Architects may also have some authority.

I propose that the "ship pronoun style" be changed back to the original style in which this article was written, namely "she" and "her". Please comment on this proposal. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Study of Category:Tea clippers for usage of feminine or neuter pronouns to refer to a ship
Entirely “she”/”her”: Ambassador (clipper), Ariel (clipper), Comet (clipper), Cutty Sark, Fiery Cross (clipper), Hallowe'en (clipper), Houqua (clipper), Lahloo (clipper), Leander (clipper), Lord of the Isles (clipper), Lothair (clipper), Memnon (clipper), Mimosa (ship), USS Nightingale (1851), The Great Tea Race of 1866, Sea Serpent (clipper), Sea Witch (1848 barque), Sea Witch (clipper), Serica (clipper), Sir Lancelot (clipper), Stag Hound, Stornoway (clipper), Surprise (clipper), Thermopylae (clipper), Witch of the Wave

Mostly “she”/”her” (in each case, one usage of “it”): Challenger (clipper), Lammermuir (1864 clipper)

Both usages (1 instance of each): Lammermuir (1856 clipper)

No examples of either usage: Robin Hood (clipper)

There are no articles in this category that exclusively use the neuter pronoun “it” to refer to a ship.

Diaries of people who travelled on City of Adelaide
The following use "she"/"her" when referring to a ship, with one instance of "it" in the Nancarrow family diary, which uses "she"/"her" thereafter. The other diaries in the collection have no usage of either type. http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_Frederick_Bullock (Frederick Bullock a later mayor of Adelaide) http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_James_McLauchlan http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Diary_of_Melville_Miller http://cityofadelaide.org/wiki/Nancarrow_Family

yet more stuff
Screw Steamer

Steamship

user:Stan Shebs (talk | contribs) user:Boatman (talk | contribs)

how to refer to a category on a talk page
I want to refer to a category on a talk page. With an ordinary article, I can type in SS Adriatic (1871) and get the desired result. If I put "Category:Tea clippers" in the same squared brackets, it appears right at the bottom of the page, when I would like it in the text in the same way as the link to SS Adriatic works. i.e. you can read the words "Category:Tea clippers" in the sentence in which it is written, but you can click on it to see what is in that category. Is there a way of doing this? Thanks,ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Escape it with a colon before Category. Category:Tea clippers → Category:Tea clippers. Works for files as well. --  Gadget850talk 22:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

collapsing
The template (or ), and its paired template  (or ), are used for placing a collapse box around a talk page discussion, especially when the content contains complex wikimarkup such as tables. For very simple content, the one-piece template can be used instead.

So, here goes here is some collapsed text

and then we are back again


 * You can use Template:Collapse to collapse a section of text which should, I think, suit your needs :) Sam Walton (talk) 23:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

All your data would go in here. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 00:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Largest contributions
Hello, I want to see who are the human-users who made the largest contributions to a given wiki article. Is there any way to filter the last versions by number of bytes? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 04:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Ben. Is this what you're looking for?-- A Wild Abigail Appears!  Capture me.   Moves.  05:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Near the top of the "History" tab is a line of "External tools". The first of these is the "Revision history statistics" tool; part of its output is a chart of the "top editors" to the article by edit count and by text added. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

oral history, recorded by Imperial War Museum - source selection.
I am beginning to think that some of the oral history that was recorded by the Imperial War Museum would be a useful source for articles such as The March (1945). These are available on-line through the museum's website. Clearly, though, these recordings are primary sources - and it is clear to me that their quality varies (there is one made by Archibald Bentley Beauman who has written a very readable book called "Then a Soldier" which is cited by other historians in their recent works - but, sadly, it seems that when the IWM made its recordings, age had caught up with this old soldier and he had to answer "I don't remember" to many questions.) Using some judgement, especially where several recordings confirm one fact, I would be comfortable with using as a reference.

Two questions:

Is my attitude to these primary sources OK?

How should one cite one of these oral history references?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Cite interview?--ukexpat (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

weight
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article. Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliabl

xxxxx
(a) I presume that a permissable source for content of a Wikipedia article is a page (of a book) that is on full-time display in a museum. The example I have in mind is the page in the log book of HMS Euryalus (1803) which records Nelson's famous signal: England expects that every man will do his duty. The museum is the Nelson Collection, held at Lloyd's of London, which is accessible to members of the public by arrangement. (b) If so, what is the correct means of referencing such a source? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Nelson's log book would be a primary source, and should be use carefully. Per WP:PRIMARY:

Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see WP:Biographies of living persons § Avoid misuse of primary sources, which is policy.


 * As to referencing them, just as any other source of the same format - in this case probably use template:cite book. Rwessel (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, not sure if this really is a pure example of a primary source, more of an eyewitness account, as Nelson was on the Victory. Euryalus recorded it as it happened. The piece of information that is relevant to the article is the time of the signal (and the point is that there were several different, but close, times recorded). ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have said "HMS Euryalus' log", not "Nelson's". But it's definitely a primary source, just like any journal would be.  But, "HMS Euryalus' log recorded the time of the signal as ..." would be a classic use of a primary source.  Rwessel (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This is not a primary source:


 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Brilliant find - it's an exact quote from Euryalus' log - all that's missing is the big ink blot on the page (I guess someone's hand might have been a bit unsteady as they approached the enemy line).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

reputable sources

 * There is much guidance in Wikipedia about source selection. Begin with WP:Identifying_reliable_sources; also see WP:Verifiability. How-to information can be found in WP:Citing sources. Consult WP:NPOV if you've not perused it to date; also, be familiar with WP:Copyright. DonFB (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

workbook
I believe that User:WyndingHeadland is engaged in disruptive editing on Highland Clearances. The behaviour seems to be getting worse. Most recently we have had: Diff 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highland_Clearances&diff=806114230&oldid=805281916 Diff 1 makes allegations (in the edit summary) about ignoring consensus, but has actively deleted text that was specifically agreed on the talk page as follows: Diff 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances/Archive_4&diff=788568313&oldid=778953171 (It is the section on “Proposed deletion of section titled "Religion"” – diffs are lengthy due to archiving.) Diff 2 includes an agreed piece of text that was incorporated in the article, but later deleted as per Diff 1. It starts with “Roman Catholics had experienced a sequence of discriminatory laws in the period up to 1708…….”. The rest of Diff 2 is a lengthy discussion in which 2 other users brought in ideas that led to User:ThoughtIdRetired changing and developing their opinions – with the result that better content was inserted into the article. This would seem to be a model piece of using consensus to get a better encyclopedia. The text that was reinserted as per Diff 1 was flagged for deletion as per the following, collectively: Diff 3: 3(a) (This is the main part of the post) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799946260&oldid=799664221 3(b) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799946693&oldid=799946260 3(c) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799964988&oldid=799946693 3(d) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799965131&oldid=799964988 3(e) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=799965344&oldid=799965203 No answer was received from any users to this proposal. It was left on the talk page for 10 days and then actioned, as per the following (Diff 4): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highland_Clearances&diff=801637743&oldid=800856134 This deleted text, with its various problems, was reinstated by User: WyndingHeadland in Diff 1. It is worth noting that 2 “citation neededs” disappeared in that reinstatement, with no talk page discussion or refs provided. Diff 1 was reverted as per Diff 5: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highland_Clearances&diff=806507000&oldid=806506934 An extensive justification of this was provided on the talk page (Diff 6): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=806507623&oldid=805213684 User:WyndingHeadland responded on the talk page with further allegations on the talk page, but no answers to any of the points raised in Diff 6. This is shown in Diff 7: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=806564857&oldid=806510598 User:ThoughtIdRetired answered this with Diff 8: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=806579160&oldid=806564857

Previously we have had other unsubstantiated allegations, for example Diff 9: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances&diff=803807512&oldid=803763363 No references are given to support the accusation – there is no detail on exactly what the problem is. There seem to be no instances when User:WyndingHeadland has cited a reference (beyond copying and pasting other editors' work). (The fact that Highland Clearances needed (and still needs) substantial improvement received the following support. Diff 10, search for “Quality/Neutrality” https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Clearances/Archive_3&diff=715652271&oldid=636831920 ) ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have reverted the 21:01, 19 October 2017‎  edit by User: WyndingHeadland for the following reasons. 1)	The edit summary misrepresents the position over consensus on the content that has been edited. This subject breaks down into 2 parts: a)	The edit by User: WyndingHeadland has deleted text that was specifically agreed in a talk page discussion. This can be found in the talk page archive 4, that User: WyndingHeadland directs us to in the edit summary. The sequence of events can be summarised as follows: (i)	The discussion was started by User:ThoughtIdRetired on 22:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC) with a proposal to delete the section on Religion. (ii)	There was some conceptual agreement from User: Catrìona on 00:27, 19 June 2017 (UTC), with a suggestion of an alternative approach. (iii)	The point raised in (ii) was agreed by User:ThoughtIdRetired on 00:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC) and expanded into a plan for some additions to the article (which have since been incorporated). (iv)	User: Camerojo then joined the discussion on 05:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC), pointing out the previous talk page correspondence. There were further rounds of discussion on this, with User: ThoughtIdRetired changing their opinion and suggesting a new piece about religious discrimination for the article, to be included as part of a section that discuss the other proximal causes of clearance. A draft of the actual text on religious discrimination was included in the talk page discussion. (v)	There was no further comment from User:Camerojo and User: Catrìona stated “Looks like a nuanced, relevant, concise, and NPOV treatment of the topic. Great work! “on 16:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC) (vi)	The above was taken as a consensus to go ahead with the changes discussed. These were carried out on 23:04, 9 July 2017, a full week after the endorsement by User: Catrìona mentioned in (v). This delay allowed anyone else who so wished to contribute. (vii)	To sum up: there was a proposal which was modified by discussion, a piece of text was proposed and supported, there was no active opposition to this text, it was inserted into the article, together with the other text that was discussed at the same time. The edit by User: WyndingHeadland on 21:01, 19 October 2017‎ has therefore deleted text that was agreed by a consensus reached after discussion. b)	User:ThoughtIdRetired raised (on the talk page) what was perceived as a problem of balance (WP:DUE) in the article on 19:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC). (i)	The suggested solution was to delete some of the older text on discrimination and religion, leaving the newly written material to handle the subject. This dealt with a number of problems with the older text. There were no comments on this proposal, so, 10 days later (23:15 on 20 September 2017), the proposals were put into place. (ii)	On 19:25, 4 October 2017 (UTC), User: WyndingHeadland made some accusations about inappropriate editing. Among other discussion, the sequence of events (as summarised immediately above) was explained to User: WyndingHeadland – in short, the plans had been posted on the talk page, and there had been 10 days in which comments could have been made. (iii)	There was no answer to this from User: WyndingHeadland, until, on 21:01, 19 October 2017, when the user made the edits under discussion: deleting agreed text and adding previously deleted material whose deletion had been carefully justified. User: WyndingHeadland made no justification for this edit, beyond an edit summary that, as demonstrated above, is, in the most favourable interpretation, misleading. (iv)	So, in summary, User: WyndingHeadland has ignored the logical reasons given for deleting the old text on religion and has gone ahead and made an edit without contributing to any discussion on the point.

2)	The replacement text in the 21:01, 19 October 2017 edit by User: WyndingHeadland has numerous deficiencies, both on its own and in comparison to the text deleted in the same edit. a)	The deficiencies of the replacement text, from a stand-alone view point are substantial – but a summary of the more obvious points is as follows: (i)	In the version of this text that existed on 21:18, 18 December 2016, the first sentence of the section headed “Religion” had a “citation needed” tag. This has been deleted by the 03:47, 16 September 2017 version, but without the issue being resolved, either on the talk page or with an appropriate reference. (ii)	In the 03:47, 16 September 2017 version, there is a further “citation needed” tag in the penultimate paragraph of the section. This does not appear in the version inserted on 21:01, 19 October 2017, though the issue remains unresolved. (iii)	The statement (para 3 of section) “…religious discrimination is not considered, by some historians, to be a reason for evicting tenants as part of any clearance” is not supported by the reference, since the reference is written by two human rights lawyers in a book canvassing for a change in international law (that would give them more work). The key point is that the book is not written by historians, so does not support “…considered by some historians…”. (iv)	Para 3’s last sentence is widely disagreed with by modern historians (and the cited reference is the book by the human rights lawyers, who as non-historians, are a questionable reference according to WP:HSC). (v)	Para 4 (“Nevertheless, anti-Catholic sentiment…..”) is not supported by the first two references given. The first is referring to emigration rather than clearance (and note the definition used in the article – in fact. if you read further in the source that provides that definition – Watson and Allan – it specifically states “Areas could also become empty by net, non-enforced emigration, with or without pressure from landowners to leave, but it would be confusing to refer to this as clearance.”) The second reference (“Toiling in the vale of tears”) actually is a misquote of the third!! It talks about voluntary emigration, citing our third reference as its source, but does not correctly convey the content therein. (vi)	The last paragraph quotes Richards, but does not make totally clear that he is referring to those who choose to emigrate, not those who are evicted (or “cleared” in the terminology of the subject). I accept that we have the pending task of discussing “voluntary” emigration within the article – it is a problem to convey all the shades of grey between someone thinking there is a better life overseas and a person for whom emigration is the last resort as no realistic option is left for them in their home country. That does not take away from the fact that this last paragraph is misleading. b)	The comparative points between the two bodies of text that were swapped in the edit of 21:01, 19 October 2017 are shown below. For clarity, the “deleted text” is the version that existed before this edit and which was agreed on the talk page on 16:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC). The “replacement text” is that which was added in this edit. The deleted text provides much more information on the events discussed in the reference “Cargoes of Hope and Despair”: it mentions that the landlord was a recent convert to Presbyterianism; it explains how a potential loss of rent stalled the process; it gives the numbers of families evicted out of the total tenant population and says how many emigrated and where they got the money to do so. None of these points are made clear in the replacement text. The source “Cargoes of Hope and Despair” is used as a reference, but the content is largely ignored.

(3) To come back to the point about consensus, archive 3 of the talk page includes the following: "Quality/Neutrality This article seems to present a partisan point of view, founded perhaps in one of the cited sources (Prebble) whose work on this subject is generally discredited by serious historians. I think an extensive audit of neutrality is needed, together with an injection of some new sources. Am I alone in thinking this? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2015 (UTC) No argument here. Please see the extensive arguments in Archives 2.--SabreBD (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Yes another informed pair of eyes on this article would be welcomed. Camerojo (talk) 21:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC) Indeed. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)" I think this is a good demonstration of a consensus that the article had/has deficiencies, which are currently being addressed by successive rounds of editing. User:WyndingHeadland appears to ignore talk page content such as this, taking what appears to be a completely contrary understanding.

Throughout all the interactions with User: WyndingHeadland, it is hard to point to any situation where the user has employed specific references to support their position. It is actually quite hard to find anything that supports the idea that the user has even read any of the references concerned. There has also been an unpleasant thread of accusation of bad editing practices; and it is hard to discern any logical argument to support these accusations. It is very difficult to avoid the slow adoption of the idea that User: WyndingHeadland is engaged in disruptive editing (WP:DISRUPT). Answering the various allegations takes a lot of time that would be much better spent on dealing with the many problems with this article.

ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:35, 22 October 2017 (UTC)